***Update. This page has recently been found by a group of dog folks who are very much in favor of clicker training. As evidenced by the comments below I thought I’d add a little bit to the article to clarify some of my positions.
First off, to those who strongly disagree with me, I thank you for coming here and voicing your opinion. In nearly every public forum where I and my colleagues participate and shared our dislike for your style of training we are nearly always summarily banned for having a differing opinion.
As much as I don’t agree with your opinion I don’t fault you for having it and I’m not about to censor you for disagreeing with me. So as long as you keep your comments respectful with no cursing I’ll continue to keep them on this page with no censoring. I would encourage you to do the same on the other websites where you share opinions with varying colleagues.
Second off, in a selfish way I thank you for commenting. Google looks highly on articles with comments so your comments are helping to bring more people here to be educated on this topic.
On to the clarification. I have never asserted that clickers and treats don’t work. I KNOW they work. Anyone can see they work within minutes to train a dog to sit, lie down, or a whole variety of behaviors. The dispute I have isn’t on WHETHER they work or not.
Conversely, I know that abuse works as well. No, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating abuse just as I’m not advocating clickers by saying I know they work. But tell me, if your dog jumps on you and you smack him in the head with a frying pan, how many times will he jump on you?
So the argument isn’t about whether abuse works, clickers work, e-collars work, etc. We all know that they ALL work.
The difference comes in with the degree to which they work, the amount of time/effort to achieve satisfactory results, and the by-products of the method. Let me elaborate:
- Abusing your dog through smacking, hitting, kicking, etc. CAN work very fast to get rid of some behaviors. So it ticks a box as far as being timely and efficient. It doesn’t tick the other boxes. You don’t often see dogs get to high levels of training through abusive, emotion based and angry methods. Also, the by-products of the training are awful. The dog comes to fear the owner, hate life, and is at greater risk for real injury.
- Using motivators or a lack of motivators as the sole training method. To me, this one ticks all three boxes in a negative way. You CAN achieve quick results but they are very basic. For example, you can teach a dog to sit or lie down with a clicker super fast. As you want to take that training, though, and make it more ‘real-world’ by adding distractions, overcoming the dog’s natural drives, etc. that will take an enormous amount of time and effort. Most dog owner aren’t going to be able to develop the skills necessary for that and few dog owners will be willing to invest the time. What you end up with is very basic and rudimentary training that took a long time to achieve. At my company we regularly get clients who have been going to this type of training for months, and in some cases years, to correct issues like aggression, leash pulling, destruction, and other problems that are literally turned around in minutes, hours, or days with better methods. This leads to the by-products that I don’t like from this movement of training. So many dogs end up in shelters and euthanized because they were ‘trained’ using inferior methods that get lower end results or take too much effort to get desired results. Are dogs abused through clicker training? Absolutely not. But the lack of ability to produce quantifiable and qualifiable results ends up with an awful by-product.
I, very often, see proponents of this method talk about their ‘successes’ in ‘training’ an aggressive dog, or a destructive dog, or a hyper dog. Frequently those successes were built on management with drugs, management with avoiding scenarios (we’ve had many clients been told by their ‘positive’ trainers that in order to fix their dog’s aggression they just had to avoid dogs…not so much of a fix), or simply excuses like ‘well, this breed is just that way’ or ‘there is a ceiling with every dog so this is as far as we’re going to get’ or other such excuses. The successes that these trainers enjoy are far inferior to the successes enjoyed by a more stabilized approach. So, again, I don’t doubt certain successes in this style. I just happen to know that there are far greater successes within reach.
- Using what I call a ‘stabilized approach’ or what other trainers refer to as a ‘balanced approach’. When this approach is done wrong it can absolutely have bad by-products. I’m not ignorant of the damage that unskilled, cruel, or idiotic trainers have done with pinch collars and electric collars. But with even a little bit of skill someone who is using a stabilized approach will be able to achieve high end results, in a quicker time, with no negative by-products. That just isn’t a claim that can be made by any other style of training.
I have years and years of anecdotes that I could share but one that I often like to think of was a client I worked with a few summers back. She had an 8 year old dog with severe aggression issues that she adopted when the dog was 1. It was her love for this dog that actually inspired her to enroll in one of the most respected University level dog behavior programs in the country. These were the folks doing the studies, writing the papers, creating the research on why their method is better. In four years she graduated and hung out her shingle as a dog trainer after having worked with professors and professionals in the industry using positive methods, clickers, motivators, etc. None of it had any effect, though. Despite what studies told her she couldn’t see any sort of change and was forced into management mode for 7 years and keeping her dog isolated from other dogs.
She happened to be in my town, Salt Lake City, for three weeks, far removed from her home back East. We met two times. We used a pinch collar and an electric collar along with rewards, primarily praise but also some treats. We used methods that I developed designed to correct the aggression, teach better leash skills, teach her skills for focusing, and teaching her how to self manage. She was only briefly in town, I would have loved to have worked with her more. She confided in me later, though, that with those two sessions her dog had made more progress in three weeks than she had in 7 previous years of working with Doctors, Professors, and bright minds in the dog training profession.
Do I discount what professors and researchers have to say? No…not really. I see some value in what they are doing. But it’s common knowledge that the money for research follows popular opinion. You want grants? Start doing research that supports what people want to hear. That doesn’t make me a flat-earther. It just means I have a healthy skepticism for scientific studies as we all should. As soon as scientists start putting out drugs that don’t maim and kill, make weather predictions that are always right, delve into the human psyche to show predictable and verifiable results when variables are changed, make economic predictions that actually occur…then let’s start pointing to studies as infallible.
Until then, and while scientists continually get things wrong and are continually shown to have bias in how they conduct their studies, let’s look at the data and make our own interpretations instead of blindly tossing out studies instead of results that someone has been able to achieve on their own.
To sum it up, does clicker training work? Absolutely. Just not on a level that I would feel comfortable charging for and putting my name on. I’ve made a nice career with thousands of happy clients and dogs based on a stabilized approach to training and if the means ever come out to accomplish that with purely motivators I will adapt to that. Until then, I’m going to stick with what gets the best results for both dog and owner.****
There are some little known secrets about clicker training for dogs that most professional dog trainers don’t want you to know. The fact is that clicker training is not effective yet it has become one of the biggest movements in dog training despite the fact that it is deeply flawed and based on incorrect understanding of dog behavior and learning. How can I make such a bold assertion? Read on.
Clicker training has it’s first beginnings back in the 1960s when animal trainers were using clickers and whistles to train pigeons, dolphins, and other animals for military application.
For example, dolphins were trained to use their natural sonar to locate mines underwater in harbors and off coast lines.
Sound like a great idea, right?
In theory it was. The following points, though, outline why this can be great for dolphins but bad for your family pet:
- These dolphins being trained were 100% dependent on their trainers for food. If they didn’t work they didn’t eat. All of the dolphin’s meals for the day were divvied out as the dolphin performed his or her tasks. This is fine if you are a full time trainer and your only job is to give the dolphin his mackerel for his work. What about the family dog, though? Do you really think it’s a good idea that your dog’s entire food consumption is dependent on whether or not he wants to lie down and stay when someone knocks on the door? Do you want to make your dog’s meal contingent on whether or not he ignores the cat and comes when called? Can you imagine the hassle of carrying around your dog’s meals all day long so you can gradually parse them out for good behavior? The logistics of this idea are ridiculous.
- You can’t correct a dolphin. I’ve yet to see a training collar big enough for a dolphin. If you try to use a spray bottle on a dolphin like you can with a dog or cat I don’t think it has the same effect. What are you going to do? Get in the tank and start smacking the dolphin around? Of course not. There is no effective and humane way to correct a dolphin. As a result the trainers HAD TO devise other methods to train behaviors.There ARE effective and humane ways to administer corrections to dogs. Why ignore those when they speed up the learning process, improve the relationship between the dog and owner, and make behaviors more sure and certain.
- The effectiveness of the training wore off in the ‘real world’. When these dolphins were done with training and sent out into the ocean to do their job the trainers were surprised to find out that they lost several dolphins. Despite all the clickers and the whistles the dolphins still didn’t respond to their training.
Why?
Simple. Clickers and whistles don’t provide deterrents for bad behaviors. They ONLY provide positive motivation for good behavior. What happens when results of behavior were better than what the trainer was offering? The dolphin is left looking at this wide open world full of fish, vegetation, tides, rocks, caves, other dolphins, etc. and they realize that they’d rather go after the distraction then go to the trainer.
In realizing this the military just came to realize that this was a ‘cost of doing business’. If you are going to train dolphins, well…you may just lose some. Okay, let’s move on to training the next batch.
What does that mean for the family dog, though? If you train the dog in the living room with clickers and treats and no distractions what do you think will happen when you attempt to transition that training to the real world? There are a lot of things in the real world (bikes, cats, dogs, kids, cars, squirrels, etc.) that are far more interesting than your clicker and treats.
Remember, many of the dolphins did come back after their task. Not all of them swam off into the wide open sea.
Are you willing to risk that it’s your dog, though, who cares more about distractions than he does about your rewards?
The bottom line is that clicker training for dogs can be great if you are teaching tricks or other behaviors that don’t need to be performed with any level of distraction. The second you want to add distractions to the mix, though, this style of training will leave much to be desired.
105 Responses to “Clicker Training for Dogs”
Clicker training is not a new word for me. Actually a friend of mine made his dog trained from Clicker Training . So I know that your training schedule and comfort zone for dogs is quite good.
How can i purchased a book and or dvd with all the topics and tips related on how to train an american bulldog in every aspect ?
Go to amazon and purchase any of the following
the misunderstood dog - jordan rothman
don’t shoot the dog - karen pryor
or
the culture clash - jean donaldson
Check out our DVD programs- https://www.dogbehavioronline.com/dog-training-tools/dog-training-courses/
I cannot recommend this person as his facts are inaccurate & he uses methods that are scientifically proven to be wrong & dangerous.
Agreed!!!
Same challenge to you as to Beth. Let me know what science says that methods that are proven to work don’t work?
Bentosela, M., Barrera, G., Jackovcevic, A., El
gier, A.M., Mustaca, A.E. (2008) Effect of
reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic
animals (
Canis familiaris)
.
Behavioural Processes
788, 464-469.
Blackwell, E.J., Twells, C.,
Seawright, A., Casey, R.A. (2007) The relationship between
training methods and the occurrence of behaviour problems in a population of domestic dogs.
Proceedings of the 6
th
International Veterinary Behaviour Meeting,
Fondazione Iniziative
Zooprofilattiche e Zootecniche, Brescia, Italy, 51-52.
3
Haverbeke, A., Laporte, B., Depeierieux, E., Gi
ffroy, J.M., Diedrich, C. (2008) Training
methods of military dog handlers and t
heir effects on team’s performances.
Applied Animal
Behaviour Science
113, 110-122.
Herron, M.E., Shofer, F.S., Reisner, I.R. (
2009) Survey of the use and outcome of
confrontational and non-confront
ational training methods in client owned dogs showing
undesired behaviours.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
117, 47-54.
Hiby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., Bradshaw, J.W.S.
(2004) Dog training methods – their use,
effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare.
Animal Welfare
13, 63-69.
Landsberg, G.M., Hunthausen, W., Ackerman, L. (2003) Canine aggression,
Handbook of
Behaviour Problems of the Dog and Cat (second ed.)
, Saunders, Edinburgh, 385-426.
Smith S.M., Davis, E.S. (2008)
Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not
decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs
(Canis familiaris). Applied
Animal Behaviour Science
110, 318-329.
Yin, S., Fernandez, E.J., Pagan, S., Richardson
, S.L., Snyder, G. (2008) Efficacy of a remote-
controlled, positive reinforcement, dog-train
ing system for modifying problem behaviours
exhibited when people arrive at the door.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science
113, 123-128.
Those studies prove that using corrections doesn’t work? Give me a break.
You have some studies showing what people have done with treats and clickers. You don’t have any studies showing how corrections don’t work. The closest you have in that drivel are studies showing how compulsion doesn’t work but I’ve read the studies. The manner in which the compulsion was administered was so ridiculous it could have only been applied by a professor or a ‘cookie pushing’ trainer.
Try again.
Actually, if you had read ANY of those papers you would have understood they explore the quandrats (i.e. R+,R-,P+,P- If you understand any theory of behaviour I hope you know what those are!) of learning very thoroughly - in fact, looking particularly at a few of those, the title itself hints at its exploration into varying theories. Especially the ‘militia’ dog handling paper.
I am currently at university doing research, and believe me in order to get any results we look especially for dogs to use in our samples which are currently (and not recently) had aversives used on them, if we are studying their cognition or learning in a fair way. This is because, simply put, that dogs who have aversives used on them are (and this has been tested, and proven STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT) less involved in their environment - and so less inclined to learn from it.
My lecturers are world class, have published numerous peer reviewed papers, books and articles - anecdotal evidence shows no ‘control’ (if you have ever ever been interested in behavioural science you should know what a ‘control’ is), it shows no methodological fairness, it has no statistical tests to determine the importance of results compared to a ‘control’ (which anecdotes do not have!) and so therefore is of less value than a fair, extremely well-researched test with a large number of dogs and a good standard of ethical and methodological equality across all samples.
so, to sum up =
‘proof’ is the ability to show, in a repeatable manner with a record, and with numbers and statistics which back up the claims, and this is further backed up by computer analysis (which is how the system works)
‘proof’ is NOT a single persons ideas of results, with no consistent record for events, methods, results, and with no analysis on results. It certainly is NOT your clients (who are,lets be truthful uneducated in behaviour science), views on what constitutes a ‘result’.
“It certainly is NOT your clients (who are,lets be truthful uneducated in behaviour science), views on what constitutes a ‘result’.”
Wow. This has got to be the most elitist snobbish comment I’ve ever heard in dog training. Now someone needs a University degree before they can determine if a dog who was previously aggressive, and now no longer is, constitutes a result.
I do like this part of your response, though- “‘proof’ is the ability to show, in a repeatable manner with a record’. That is what the balanced community has in spades with the motivation only crowd does not. Whenever I ask for proof in the form of video results all I EVER get is a link to a study done by inept intellectuals who don’t have to produce in the real world.
I’d be curious to know what science disproves my methods? I have demonstrable proof for years and years showing how my methods work.
Wow! This article is deeply flawed and illogical. If you don’t know anything about clicker training you probably shouldn’t be flouting your ignorance for all to see. Proofing at all levels of distraction to make sure the dog understands in all circumstances is the protocol. Clickers speed up learning, not correction. Corrections actually slow down or block the learning process and that is backed by science. Why would tigers, whales and elephants are trained with clickers if they didn’t work. How ridiculous to say you cannot put a “training” collar on them and then begin to argue that clickers don’t work. You’ve also left out the most important part of training, the relationship and human/dog bond. Corrections quickly tear at the very fabric of that. When your dogs work with you because they want to, not because they fear you, then you have a trained dog.
You may want to check the ‘science’ on why they train tigers, whales, and elephants with clickers. it’s not what you’re touting.
I know that clickers work. What I also know is that clicker training as it is done by the majority of most dog trainers and dog owners today ‘works’ on a very low level to achieve a very inadequate level of obedience.
I have high standards for my dogs and my client’s dogs which is why clickers never enter the equation.
I find it disingenuous of you to suggest that clicker training “works on a very low level to achieve a very inadequate level of obedience.” There are hacks in dog training, just as there are in every profession. You would certainly sound ridiculous going around saying that birth control pills don’t work simply because there are women who get pregnant because they forget to take them. Training, whether it’s your brand or it’s clicker training, works on the principles of operant and classical conditioning, and it is only the mechanics of the trainers using those principles that differ. If you are a skilled clicker training, you’ll have obedient dogs. I have high ethical standards, which is why shock collars never enter the equation for me.
I’ve never claimed anything about woman’s birth control, have no idea how that entered the equation, and see your argument as a complete apples to oranges attempt at getting a point across.
The most skilled of clicker trainers will rarely approximate the level of training that even a novice ‘balanced’ trainer will achieve with methods that are more in line with what the science tells us is effective. Purely positive folks jump on the bandwagon that they have studies that show that pp works. I don’t deny it works. It just doesn’t work very well.
So you would make a better argument comparing highly effective birth control (balanced or stabilized training) to a lesser prescription of birth control that is known for allowing a lot of pregnancies (purely positive or clicker based training) if you were looking for accuracy.
: The most skilled of clicker trainers will rarely approximate the level of training that even a novice ‘balanced’ trainer will achieve with methods that are more in line with what the science tells us is effective. ”
Annnnd, you base this assumption on which study? This is certainly not my experience and I am not aware of any studies that show such a result.
Oh, and there is no such thing as purely positive. Any educated clicker trainer is fully aware that there are four quadrants to learning theory, all of which “teach”. They just choose to emphasize the ones that make the dog and handler enjoy their job and has the least amount of fallout possible.
There has to be a study for everything now? Decades in the business doesn’t count for anything unless someone with some fancy letters after their name agrees? Give me a break.
I’m still open to seeing some results that ‘prove me wrong’. Go ahead, let’s see some video instead of listing some studies. I’m interested in what actually works, not what some professor told you works.
Why is it that when the argument between clicker trainers and balanced trainers come up the clicker trainers resort to studies to prove their claims and the balanced trainers point to what has actually been done over and over and over and can be proven and shown through video, testimonials, etc.?
You guys need to come back with something more convincing than a list of studies.
How about hurting a dog in the name of training is just plain WRONG. Anyone who truly understands dogs realizes you NEVER EVER need to correct a dog.
“hurting a dog in the name of training is just plain WRONG”
I’ll agree with you on that one, Gen.
This completely asinine. No credentials, no factual or statistical proof, as well as no documentation to support this man’s claims what so ever…. seems quite frivolous! It is truly disappointing to read this, I can’t imagine having that kind mentality towards another living thing. You would rather punish and reprimand a dog for not thinking and acting like a human simply because it is a “Hassle” for you…. in addition to this blatantly ignorant rant , he misspelled Praise (Prase).
The last bastion of the losing argument is to go after grammar and spelling of your opponent. Sad.
Your assertion that I would rather punish and reprimand a dog for not thinking and acting like a human is 100% false.
This whole website is documentation supporting my claims. Feel free to go through it or feel free to continue to believe the new ‘dogma’ of today’s ‘behaviorists’. The choice is yours.
I hate to see any discussion on training become the defense of ones unyielding dogma on training. I will first say I have no clicker credentials exceppt working with KP at the National Zoo in 1977/78. She was hired to teach the zoo keeper staff about operant behavior and the use of primary and secondary reinforcers. Becaused the whistles used by the aquatic trainers were a bit slow for the bridge she sugessted we go to the dime store and buyt clickers. Yes the elephants are very smart and pick up on the conditioning quickly. Prior to Karen Pryors arrivals we,the keepers and learning old school trainers had to over come some dangerous issues using force training. In the book don’t shoot tbhe dog KP describes how Jim Jones and her trained Shanti to retrieve a frisbee,in truth the young elephant tried to eat it. Had it not been for some hands on training wed wouldn’t have been able to reach in her mouth to remove it..I no longer work there, fired in 1979, but I called an old efephant co worker to check my memory and yes we aggreed no PP. In defense of punishment and it’s misuse in the discussion,the use of punishment is to reduce an unwanted behavior whether the punishment is neg or pos. For those that are comfortabke with it please use it I’ll bridge orally.
Just wondering what your credentials are. Where were you educated as a trainer? What schools or programs did you attend? Who are your mentors in the training and behavior world?
What schools and programs and credentials? Unfortunately, there are no serious programs in any colleges across the US for dog training. There are a few who have attempted to add some classes and programs but their efforts haven’t produced any real-world results.
bull.
And yet you provide no resources for schools and programs?
Gen, from your comments I’m starting to think you have nothing of value to add to this conversation.
The CCPDT offers a national certification and it’s endorsed by Veterinary Behaviorists, who are the most educated, highly regarded experts on domestic animal behavior.
No they aren’t. They just aren’t. They are the most respected amongst those who buy into an inferior style of training but that doesn’t make them the best experts in the field by a long shot.
Wow, your science is flawed and I’m sorry for all the other people that are being subjected to your ignorance. The ONLY argument you can have against positive reinforcement training is that it didn’t work for you. The ONLY reason it didn’t work is because you don’t understand the science of learning and how to apply it. I love the comment that there’s no good schools - so typical of someone who thinks they know everything and has no clue how little they know.
I’m not saying it doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work on a level that I’d feel comfortable charging money for.
I’m the first to admit that it works. Just don’t expect to get great levels of training out of it.
Then perhaps you are simply not proficient at it. I guess this says it all.
I’m absolutely not proficient at clicker training. Nor am I proficient at driving while blindfolded. Nor am I proficient at treating pneumonia with bath salts. Nor am I proficient at jogging 5 miles on my hands.
There are numerous ridiculous activities at which I am not proficient. Your point?
That the activity is not ridiculous. And your comparisons are inaccurate. It’s more akin to trying to drive stick when you don’t know how to. I don’t know how to drive stick and so wouldn’t attempt to do it with someone’s car unless I took the time to learn how to do it. So you’re not proficient at clicker training. You admit this. So perhaps it’s time to either learn how to do it properly or admit that you know nothing about it and so cannot make statements about its usefulness.
To me a ridiculous activity is one in which I would spend a large amount of time for little to no reward. Trainers have already proven that clicker training is far less effective. I can see no point in spending my time becoming proficient in something that has SOME use but there are better ways of achieving the goal.
As a successful clicker trainer who uses it for not only tricks and basic behaviors, but also serious aggression issues, I have two words for this article. One of them is Bull.
‘Successful clicker trainer’ is an oxymoron.
Only in your opinion, this is all your article is, your opinion. I think the best thing to say is that in order to argue effectively against something you need to know everything about it. You have stated that you are not proficient in it and therefore any opinion you have can only be viewed as on layman’s terms of someone who doesn’t like the method. I love the method, can use it to shape all kinds of behaviours at whatever level and with whatever distractions there are. Otherwise how can their be clicker classes held in halls and schools around the world with a huge variety of distractions!
Of course it’s my opinion. Thankfully my opinion is correct.
I don’t need to know everything about a subject in order to argue against it. I have passing knowledge of WW2 but still think it’s awesome we got rid of Hitler, I’ve never studied gravity in depth but would argue vehemently to those who would deny it’s existence, and I have no idea how La Costa restaurant in my hometown makes those burritos but I will argue in favor of them being the best food on this planet until the day I die.
What I do have is decades of experience and knowledge and a deep understanding of dog behavior. Is it based on text books? Yes and no. Yes, my style of training is supported by all the latest science. But, no, I don’t go asking permission of a text book before I start getting awesome results for my clients and their dogs.
Let me get this straight. You are not proficient at a non- forceful method of training which leaves me with the understanding that you are highly provident at using pinch, choke and shock collars ( or are you training without tools what so ever?) additionally because you are unable to competently grasp a easily learned method of training with little fallout and big benefits you instantly believe that the average dog owner is too lazy and dumb to learn it too? And you also believe that clicker training is not useful for more complicated or serious training despite obvious results from various sources including military, law enforcement, sport dog, herding and other recreational trainers. That is some interesting logic you have. Following the other bit of “logic” you spouted, your opinion is moronic. That’s my opinion and I am correct.
Oh and should you think I’m one of those elitist snobs with all the fancy letters after my name, I have no letters or official credentials as offered by a useless school. (Really your expression of sustain makes you seem petty and bitter) What I have is 30 years of hard work hands on training, breeding, showing and rescuing animals and dogs in particular. I have 30 years of reading and studying all the new information all the scientists and researchers have shared over the years. I started training with a choke chain and leash. Now I still don’t use a clicker but I no longer need a leash or collar of any kind. I teach my students to lay their foundations for new cues with markers and rewards just like a clicker trainer. It’s done quickly, proficiently, and with lots of enjoyment between dog and owner as part if their daily routine. Your rant in light of my experience leaves me pitying you and your lack of knowledge.
I hope learn something new soon and can become more competent in using the other two quadrants of operant conditioning.
“You are not proficient at a non- forceful method of training…”
I’m very proficient at non-forceful training. I’m just not proficient at clicker training.
“you are unable to competently grasp a easily learned method of training with little fallout and big benefits…”
This doesn’t describe clicker training. Clicker training has big fallout and small benefits.
“despite obvious results from various sources including military, law enforcement, sport dog, herding and other recreational trainers.”
There aren’t any obvious results. It’s fairly obvious you aren’t clear on how military and law enforcement dogs are trained. There ARE a good amount of sport trainers who use purely positive methods but that’s training for the competition field. None of my clients live on the competition field. They live in the real world where clicker training has huge drawbacks.
“Your rant in light of my experience leaves me pitying you and your lack of knowledge.”
Your pity is much appreciated. Thank you.
“I hope learn something new soon and can become more competent in using the other two quadrants of operant conditioning.”
If that is your goal then I applaud you and will support your desire to learn about all 4 quadrants.
There is a lot of science behind the fact that punishment based training is not optimal and that “balanced” training can create confusion and distress:
http://lifeasahuman.com/2011/pets/dog-trainings-latest-buzzword-balance/
http://ahimsadogtraining.com/handouts/training-basics.html?alt=learning+theory
http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/tag/positive-vs-negative-dog-training
http://www.4pawsu.com/harsh_agg.htm
http://www.4pawsu.com/trainingmethods.htm
Was this a joke list? You sent a list of links to people who say that ‘science based’ training is better. There was no science on these pages, though, outside of defining basic principles of conditioning.
Try again. And keep trying. I love the commenting. Helps with page rankings and that way more folks can get education on the fallacy of clickers.
“There is no effective and humane way to correct a dolphin”
Utter tosh. Why would you want to correct a dolphin, there’s no need when it’s easy to get it right in the first place and you would only get it right in the first place if you understood the basic principles of animal behaviour and learning.
“What happens when results of behavior were better than what the trainer was offering?”
Again even basic kindergarten animal training - you haven’t found the right motivation for the animal
“If you train the dog in the living room with clickers and treats and no distractions what do you think will happen when you attempt to transition that training to the real world? There are a lot of things in the real world (bikes, cats, dogs, kids, cars, squirrels, etc.) that are far more interesting than your clicker and treats.”
Ooo, that same old phrase - basic animal training kindergarten stuff - it’s called building up the distractions
“What schools and programs and credentials? Unfortunately, there are no serious programs in any colleges across the US for dog training. There are a few who have attempted to add some classes and programs but their efforts haven’t produced any real-world results.”
Seriously - what planet are you living on? My 12yr can find several programmes/classes that produce real world if not world class results. Any trainer who thinks they can blind people with a one sided uneducated stance to training without understanding all the tools in the OC/CC box (look the terms up, applies to any living organism inc humans) just isn’t a trainer worth bothering to listen to.
“Seriously – what planet are you living on? My 12yr can find several programmes/classes that produce real world if not world class results. Any trainer who thinks they can blind people with a one sided uneducated stance to training without understanding all the tools in the OC/CC box (look the terms up, applies to any living organism inc humans) just isn’t a trainer worth bothering to listen to.”
Yet you don’t provide any? Get your 12 year old on here, then.
“Ooo, that same old phrase – basic animal training kindergarten stuff – it’s called building up the distractions”
Sounds fine in theory. Let’s see some video of high end, distraction heavy training done with treats and clickers. I’ll wait while you go find some.
“Utter tosh. Why would you want to correct a dolphin, there’s no need when it’s easy to get it right in the first place and you would only get it right in the first place if you understood the basic principles of animal behaviour and learning.”
Of course there is no reason to correct a dolphin. You have a captive audience that doesn’t live unless he performs. Good luck replicating that in a dog. Ever seen the studies on what happens when clicker ‘trained’ dolphins are let loose in the real world with real distractions? Oops.
“Again even basic kindergarten animal training – you haven’t found the right motivation for the animal”
Again, if this is so basic and kindergarten let’s see some high end, distraction heavy training with clickers. Shouldn’t be a problem digging up some video if it’s so basic, right?
The reality is that both of us have science on our side based on our own interpretations of said science. Only one of our sides, though, has actual results.
This is Emily Larlham, also known as Kikopup from Youtube.
She is a world renown Positive Reinforcement Trainer who uses Clicker as well, coined the term Progressive Reinforcement Training. She uses absolutely no force, no intimidation and pure clicker positive reinforcement. She has 4 dogs and they are all very well trained. She can get behaviors (Either basic/easy, tricks, counter conditioning, etc) as quickly as traditional method trainers without using the traditional methods.
Here is her page: http://dogmantics.com/progressive-reinforcement-training-manifesto/
Here is her Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/kikopup
Here is her Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/emily.larlham.1?fref=ts
Here are schools and universities that teaches behavior and training:
Academy for Dog Trainers: http://www.academyfordogtrainers.com/
Karen Pryor Academy for Animal training and Behavior: http://www.academyfordogtrainers.com/
Association of Pet Dog Trainers: http://www.apdt.com/trainers/career/
CATCH: Canine Trainers Academy: http://www.catchdogtrainers.com/
Starmark Academy: http://www.schoolfordogtrainers.com/
Academy of Dog Training and Agility: http://www.academyofdogtraining.com/
San Francisco SPCA The Academy for Dog Trainers: http://www.sfspca.org/programs-services/academy-dog-trainers
And many more.
I use Clickers for aggression cases as your voice can have too much emotion in them and can stress the dogs out hearing them. Clickers have no vocal intonation or emotion in the sound, so you can reward your dog without fearing that you will push him over the edge. If he is over threshold, that tells me that he is too far gone and I need to step back as I have pushed him too far. Dogs working over threshold cannot work no matter what because they are too stressed. Clickers are wonderful when introducing dogs to real world situations. And it goes faster. Whenever clients come to you saying that they’ve spent months on something, clearly have either been working with a trainer who does not understand how the clicker really works and how to correctly apply it, or these people tried it on their own without knowing how to use it correctly. I have many clients coming to me saying using the clicker didn’t work, but upon problem solving, we find out 99% of the time, they are using the clicker incorrectly and after re-introducing it the right way, the dog makes leaps and bounds immediately.
The fact that you keep throwing out all of this experience you have and are downing Clicker training, obviously is scared to admit that you are doing wrong. Training should be about trust and building relationships with our dogs. Your views on dog training and canine learning theory is flawed and the fact that you can’t read the science and learn from it even if it’s placed right in front of you, tells me that you are very arrogant and want to remain that way. Learning new things shouldn’t be something to be ashamed of or scared of. There is a science to everything, even canine learning theory. The dominance method has been debunked many times, and the guy who created it, even came back and said that he was totally wrong and how he feels horrible how this has taken popularity and wish he never introduced the method as it destroys dogs.
I know this is probably going to end up on deaf ears, as you are obviously not willing to learn and better yourself as a dog trainer. I once was like that. I didn’t want to switch, let alone believe that what I was doing was wrong. Once I learned the hows and whys, the new way became so much better, and so much more efficient and the dogs LOVE doing it. If you continue to have the attitude you have today, you will be out of a job, as people are moving with the flow of behavioral science and canine learning theory to understand how the dog learns, reacts, feels, etc.
Thanks for the links? I guess? I’m aware that there are a lot of clicker trainers out there.
“Whenever clients come to you saying that they’ve spent months on something, clearly have either been working with a trainer who does not understand how the clicker really works and how to correctly apply it, or these people tried it on their own without knowing how to use it correctly. I have many clients coming to me saying using the clicker didn’t work, but upon problem solving, we find out 99% of the time, they are using the clicker incorrectly and after re-introducing it the right way, the dog makes leaps and bounds immediately.”
I’ll concede that. Will you concede the same for training collars? Many times the fault of the training collar isn’t the collar, but the user.
I still maintain, however, that someone using a balanced method in a very proficient way will beat out someone using motivators only in a very proficient way. No studies, though, so how ever will we know? Oh yeah. Real world training. I’m happy to challenge any purely positive trainer out there with my own money on the types of results we can get. Any takers?
“Training should be about trust and building relationships with our dogs.”
Agreed. That’s why I like a balanced approach.
“Your views on dog training and canine learning theory is flawed and the fact that you can’t read the science and learn from it even if it’s placed right in front of you, tells me that you are very arrogant and want to remain that way.”
When the ‘science’ conflicts with what is being done in the ‘real world laboratory’ every day does that mean that the real world is flawed? Or the science is flawed?
“The dominance method has been debunked many times, and the guy who created it, even came back and said that he was totally wrong and how he feels horrible how this has taken popularity and wish he never introduced the method as it destroys dogs.”
What does dominance theory have to do with anything? Has anyone even brought up pack behavior or dominance theory?
“I know this is probably going to end up on deaf ears, as you are obviously not willing to learn and better yourself as a dog trainer. I once was like that. I didn’t want to switch, let alone believe that what I was doing was wrong. Once I learned the hows and whys, the new way became so much better, and so much more efficient and the dogs LOVE doing it. If you continue to have the attitude you have today, you will be out of a job, as people are moving with the flow of behavioral science and canine learning theory to understand how the dog learns, reacts, feels, etc.”
Self righteous much? I’m a sarcastic guy, as evidenced by my comments here, but I’ve been at least been trying to play above the belt. This may come out wrong but this last paragraph of yours could have been lifted from some cult brochure on why I need my brain washed.
As of me being out of a job, my company has grown every year it’s been in existence. My summer schedule is booked as I’ve got clients flying me around into several countries this summer to work with their dogs. Our waiting list for our three trainers is a month right now to get in to work with us. People continue to buy our training DVDs in every state and in over a dozen countries around the world. There are a lot of things that I can improve with my job, but it’s going pretty darn well. The reality is that the motivator only crowd only looks good on paper. If there is anyone at risk of losing their job, I’m afraid it’s you guys. People just aren’t going to put up with subpar results.
Ty says: “What schools and programs and credentials? Unfortunately, there are no serious programs in any colleges across the US for dog training. There are a few who have attempted to add some classes and programs but their efforts haven’t produced any real-world results.”
The Flat-Earth-Society here we come…
The available information and science is there, you need only become a student of it. Your assertions about operant conditioning are flawed which demonstrates to me that you don’t embrace the science. Not believing in decades of demonstrable science means you are not engaging in dog training: you are effectively making it up as you go along. The efficacy of operant conditioning (and its proper execution) is not a matter of “opinion”. Why don’t you send your “points” to Bob Bailey and ask him what he thinks about your claims? If you don’t know who Bob Bailey is then you also need a refresher course in history as well.
I don’t believe the earth is flat.
Not believing in decades of demonstrable dog training show me that you aren’t interested in helping dogs but rather promoting ideology that makes sense on paper but falls apart in the real world.
Who is denying conditioning by the way? You keep running back to that as if I have ever claimed that I don’t believe in any sort of conditioning?
You’ve completely missed the point of clicker training. Not sure your writing deserves a whole paragraph reply, so i wont bother.
Darn.
Hi Ty,
Thank you for totally proving that anyone can make claims about science or their methods. Because anyone can…especially if they do not post any studies. Operant conditioning is operant conditioning no matter which of the quadrants you choose to use. Purely positive makes me want to gag because it does not exist and the only people who ever bring it up are frustrated and insecure “balanced” trainers who would rather slap an ecollar on a dog than, god forbid, use food or a toy as a reinforcement.
All you do is make yourself look like a training neanderthal bringing out weak arguments with no proof. You want to see clicker trained obedience? Check out Mario Verslijpe and his latest dog, Hasco who has been completely trained with clicker/marking training. NO CORRECTIONS…at the World IPO championships. He used to use an ecollar. He no longer has to because he has developed his skill and used his brain.
I can provide dozens, if not hundreds, of studies that prove that positive reinforcement based training is as accurate and successful as correction based/balanced training, without behavioural fallout or risk thereof..what do you have to show us to back up your bluster?
Decades of personal experience and hundreds of years of combined experience of colleagues. Doesn’t look as cool, though, I’ll admit, if there isn’t a fancy study attached to eons of experience showing how balanced training will outperform polarized training every time.
I do think your side needs to find some new examples, though. For every 1000 case studies showing balanced training outperforming the positive folks will pull out one or two trainers who have had success with clickers. Great stories, but you’re going to need a lot more evidence before you start to become relevant.
This is a parody, right? Nobody in this day and age could possibly ignore the roomfuls of applied science on animal learning and dog b-mod n the service of wanting to use collar corrections on dogs. Have we been fired back to 1975? LOL!!!
I’m interested to see your science that says that collar corrections don’t work?
I also find it interesting that there is this assumption that if something is newer, it’s better. It’s easy to say with a scoff that those idiot trainers in 1975 didn’t know what they were doing. But let’s also look at results when we’re talking about behavior.
Sorry, I don’t have any studies to show and I know that is currency for some folks, but most people who have been observant will tell you that over the past 40 years both dog behavior and child behavior have worsened. Boundaries are no longer being set as they were previously, discipline is now a no-no, correction is frowned upon for child and dog alike, etc. The net result, worse behavior and societies with more criminals and deviant behavior on the human side and fuller shelters and more unwanted pets on the dog side. And note, awareness about bad breeding practices is at an all time high yet we’re seeing an epidemic of shelter dogs due to bad behavior.
I find it highly arrogant to think that just because you happened to be born at a later date that you are somehow better or smarter than trainers that came before you and their knowledge can be tossed out because it doesn’t fit within the spectrum that you’ve latched onto.
Regardless, I LOVE the fact that there are more and more of your mind set. The more the market gets full of motivator-only trainers the more that dog owners are clamoring for trainers like myself who can produce results.
I can see both sides to this article, and to the commenters posting. It’s true what the commenters say — clicker training can and does work — but only for some dogs. What do you do with a dog who doesn’t care about food or toys or even praise? Or who perhaps cares a little, but is way more interested in the distractions at hand (other dogs, squirrels, children, leaves blowing by)? Clicker training simply cannot work for some dogs. Just as no single training method can work for every dog. In this case, we need to give the dog more information, helping them to make a better, safer choice. If that involves collar corrections, either through teaching them the language of the training collar or remote/e-collar, then that is what’s best for THAT dog. Something else to consider is the individual living situation of the dog. Often, as trainers, we get desperate calls from owners saying “I need this fixed NOW,” and they simply haven’t the time — and occasionally the willingness to develop the skill set — to get the behaviour they need in the time they have allotted to fix the problem (whether that’s realistic or not). Again, those are the moments when providing more information to the dog, including both rewards and consequences THAT ARE MEANINGFUL TO THE DOG is a necessary step in teaching. It’s the “meaningful to the dog” part that’s most important here — if you think you’re engaging in P- by not giving the dog a treat, it’s only P- if the dog actually cares about not getting a treat. Otherwise it’s completely inconsequential. So, to summarize, clicker training can and does work, but not for every dog, and not always to the level required. There is no single form of training that works for every dog — and that’s why we, as trainers, are OBLIGATED to step beyond our own personal philosophies and actually train the dog in front of us. If we cannot or won’t do that, then our next obligation is to refer the dog and owner to another trainer who is able and willing to do the work required to get the dog trained to the level required, in the time required. Anything less than that is completely unethical.
I use clickers all the time to begin dogs on training. But, once I have taught them the commands it is time for proofing. That is where a great balanced approach comes in. I admit, there is the occasional dog that doesn’t need a correction and does great in the real world of distractions without anything more than the motivation of a treat or toy. But, most dogs need understanding and feedback on all ends of the spectrum. Its unfair to only provide partial feedback to an animal when we can give them the full picture of what we expect from them. I love clicker training. It is fun, easy and my dogs totally love it. But, they also love the fact that I can provide a full picture to them.
One of my favorite things from R+ only trainers is when they send you to someone else’s link (which its always the same few names that comes up every time) to see the work they are talking about. They have none of their own work to show for what they are saying. Just because a very few people can take a highly highly motivated dog, bred strictly for work, and train it only on treats, does NOT mean that it can or will apply to any other average dog out there.
Clicker training works. I have trained dogs to retrieve things, turn off lights, close doors behind them, play music, and 100′s more besides beginning obedience. Clicker training one’s own dog can be a full time job and work. Using real world treats and varying those joys/rewards and also jackpotting sends messages. That is provided you have a certain kind of dog who will work with you. Maybe you have a dog that doesn’t train up perfectly, gives you the paw (finger) when he/she chooses, prefers to chase other animals into the street regardless (oh, you want your dog on leash all the time? - then clicker is fine for you), you need to teach the dog NO and correct for behavior that is dangerous or embarrassing or unacceptable after you have fully taught your dog the meaning of YES and rules of the game. Then, it is completely fair to give your dog corrections to have a 99 to 100% dog as opposed to 60% to 97%. I need my performing dogs to perform offleash in unfenced areas with other critters around and be 100% so I use more than clicker. Just depends on what dog you have, what kind of owner you are (diligent or not) and the behaviors you need. My dogs love me no matter what tools I use because I have given them a strong base of love and goodness.
Ty is correct in that Clickers work and other methods work. Anyone with their mind not deceiving themselves for the sake of believing what they want to believe will understand that he is correct.
Let’s go ahead and compare training to birth control since one of the commenters brought it up. Birth control works, clickers work. Woo boy, let’s have fun. Now let’s say, we want off leash training (freedom) or we want to date and have sex with lots of people cause we aren’t married (terriers running) Well, birth control pills are great to a point….if we don’t also use a condom to protect against HIV and STD and we got that disease, how great was that birth control pill (clicker). A correction collar, ecollar, those are the protection from cars etc that kill just as a condom is higher protection against HIV that kills. I want close to 100% cause I am training all dogs, not just those sweet cute ones who want to listen to me as a trainer. I love my dogs so much that I want them to live a long life, but also have freedoms. So, I keep my mind open to all tools and protections.
Studies - the proof is in the pudding. But everyone has different tastes so you accept a very sweet or runny pudding…good for you clicker trainer who only allows reward base. The only perfect STUDY is to cut that particular dog in half and train each half and find out the truth. No one is willing to do that and until we are, we have opinion. My opinion (clicker training for 13 years) is leaning on the side of Balance and Ty Brown.
I have to say Robin, Brittany, and Jill hit exactly what I would say. However, the Herron survey being quoted as a scientific study proving anything should just be tossed out. It is a survey, not a scientific study. How the techniques were applied, if they corresponded with the actual instruction, the reasons for the action that provoked aggresssion…really? I respect Herron, and have gone to see her speak, while I disagree in some ways, I think well of her. However the survey…not much more than a grain of salt to take with that.
Great read Ty Brown. I find it interesting how as humans we don’t immediately look to finding a balanced approach in all aspects of our lives. For people with common sense this should be a no brainer. Why would anyone want to limit themselves on a one way only style of training. fully understanding all methods and how they work, when they work, as well as their pros and cons is the best thing that you could do. I find it funny that the majority of people who are commenting are commenting simply to ” bash” you for talking “badly” (or just stating the facts that their are limits to clickers) are commenting from a purely emotional pov/state. Emotional choices are the exact reason why people struggle in life and with their pets. Emotions are the very reason why pure positive clicker only for EVERYTHING “trainers” are limited on the type of dogs and owners that they can help.
When i work with my dogs and clients dogs i take a Bruce lee approach…..I understand all methods and incorporate what is appropriate for the issue at hand.
-Blake Rodriguez
Dog Behavior Specialist of Dream Come True K9
http://www.dctk9.com/dctk9-services/
http://www.youtube.com/user/DreamComeTrueK9
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dream-Come-True-K9Blake-Rodriguez/168524309848413
I use a variety of clicker training with my dog (I do not use an actual clicker because I am not coordinated enough and suffer from carpal tunnel so holding small objects like that can be difficult). I use a marker word “Yes!” in the place of the click. To say that this can only result in inadequate or low-level training without distractions is inaccurate. If that were the case, I highly doubt I could have recalled her off a deer that surprised us while outside during a training session. I had my back turned when the deer came out of the woods and it took off running with my dog close behind. By the time I even knew what was going on she was a few hundred feet away and moving fast. Yet she turned on a dime and recalled straight back to me. Why? Because she knows the rewards she gets for coming back are HUGE (and she did indeed get a huge jackpot reward for returning to reinforce that).
I have, previously to that, stopped her from chasing rabbits and squirrels and other small creatures, recalled her out of a run through the forest (after allowing her to run and chase). Positive reinforcement and clicker training, WHEN DONE RIGHT, results in amazingly responsive dogs who can work through many distractions because they know the reward they’ll get from you is great. The problem I’m seeing in this article is a complete lack of understanding about how it works, about what distraction proofing is. Ok so it didn’t work for those dolphin trainers who didn’t spend time to train for distractions. But it clearly DID work for someone like me, who took the time to train for those distractions.
Now imagine a dog who had been punished by leash pops or a remote collar with that deer. Do you think they would come back if you couldn’t control them? What if it happened while you were out without the collar on (which it shouldn’t be if you’re doing agility training of any kind as it’s dangerous to wear)? I bet that dog would have been gone and MAYBE come back when tired of chasing the deer. But otherwise, you’ve lost your dog. Mine came back. And I have positive reinforcement to thank for that.
Congratulations on the results you’ve achieved with your dog.
Great article Ty and responses to those who don’t acknowledge the use of all four quadrants of learning theory. And, I’d like to add another tidbit that many don’t know is that the military would put basket muzzles on the dolphins so that they could not self reward themselves with fish to eat in the ocean. So the ones who would not come back did not survive as they could not eat with the basket on.
Michelle: I’m glad that your dog called off deer…so do mine and I’ve never used a treat to teach recall ever. My question would be what if you no longer gave treats if you called your dog to you…just praise? You said you jackpotted her when she returned and I’m assuming you had food for that. What happens when you don’t have food? I’ve worked with loads of dogs that once they figure out that there is no food….don’t come. In the world where there is a chance of them getting hit by a car or some other disaster, recall is not negotiable. I’ve used praise and correction for all aspects of training and yes, I’ve used food as well. I’ve managed to have dogs return to me each and every time when I’ve called despite not having food given to them each time they did. Praise is enough and that they always get. I think there is a time and place for everything and certainly use positive forms of training wherever necessary, but if I have a dog attempting to attack another dog, that will get a correction, not ignore, not a treat….
I happened to have food on me that day because were out doing agility training and since I had it, I felt that a reward of extra treats were in order. At other times, with no food on me, I have recalled her off chasing small wildlife (chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits) and away from other dogs (this was the first time we’ve been out and seen a deer). She knows I have no treats and yet comes anyway because I have built a good relationship with her, one that has not involved any correction of any sort. This idea that dogs will ONLY work with treats is ridiculous. I do a lot of agility training with my dog, use lots of treats at class, yet when I walk into the ring at a trial I have no treats on me. And she still does it. We wouldn’t have her CGC or her agility titles if she couldn’t work without treats present.
Also, stopping a dog from attacking another dog is not training. That’s an emergency situation and management. When a dog is in that situation they cannot learn anything anyway. So the ONLY thing you can do is to remove them from the situation. I have used emergency things with my dog before, mostly when I first got her, e.g. I didn’t know she’d try to herd the UPS truck by running in front of it. We were standing on the edge of the sidewalk when the vehicle started to move and she ran out into the road suddenly. I didn’t expect it and so to save her life, I yanked her back hard by the leash. It scared the crap out of her and she shut down. Training? No. Emergency management? You bet. And after that, I trained her to not do it.
“Also, stopping a dog from attacking another dog is not training. That’s an emergency situation and management. When a dog is in that situation they cannot learn anything anyway.”
Interesting limitations you put on yourself and your training and your dogs.
You’ve got an open invite to come out to Utah to learn that dogs CAN and DO learn in aggressive situations. My what little credit we give our four legged friends when we believe that they aren’t capable of learning simply because their adrenaline levels have spiked.
Your argument is a logical fallacy. Your entire basis is “simply because it works.” You never let on what your methods are. Do you beat them? Shock them, oh, I mean “pulse” them? Are you a big fan of television? That’s what it sounds like. Yours is not sage advice, its purely you confessing to being open to abuse. What does balance mean? What are the real world contingencies or consequences you use? Do you walk a dog into something that is in the way so he learns to avoid it? I live in a consequence-laden world, and I avoid the negative consequences whenever possible. I also generally if not always avoid everything associated with those consequences. But I’m irrational like that…oh, wait, so are ALL dogs.
“Your argument is a logical fallacy. Your entire basis is “simply because it works.” You never let on what your methods are.”
The fact that something works is a logical fallacy to you? Hmmmm.
I am very open about my methods. This site has hundreds of pages. You happen to have read one, were too lazy to read any others, and now accuse me of hiding my methods that are in plain sight.
“Are you a big fan of television?”
More than I should be. I LOVE Dexter, can’t wait til the new season of Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and have a guilty pleasure in Burn Notice.
Oh, did you mean do I like dog training shows on television? I don’t watch them so I don’t have an opinion.
You spend your life avoiding the negative? That’s too bad. There is no such thing as growth without stress. I’m sure if you apply yourself and really try to stretch out of your comfort zone you’ll find yourself to be a much more fulfilled person.
As suspected….a complete “non-answer” from you. Shocking!
Where is the non-answer?
You ask what my methods are…I point you to hundreds of pages of answers.
You ask if I like television. I answer the question literally and even answer what I think you might have meant.
You assert your desire to avoid conflict and I share my condolences.
What is it that I didn’t answer?
And how happy are those dogs you train? What kind of trust do they have in their owner? Did you know that the dog that was part of the Bin Laden raid was trained by all positively? That’s not rudimentary training by any means. Yes a hit on the head with a frying pan will stop the behavior but that dog will probably be afraid to come into the kitchen or be afraid of you when you have a frying pan… and that could be the least of it’s issues. Get with the scientific proof out there.
Are you going to work/train dogs for a “thank you”? I think not. You need that paycheck every once in awhile. Dogs that are lured or only work for food because it’s present will only come/work when the food is present. When clicker training is done correctly they will do what you want, when you want food or no food but you do have to reinforce every once in awhile with something that the dog finds reinforcing.
“And how happy are those dogs you train?”
On a scale of 1 to Happy they are eleventy-blue. In all seriousness, happiness is a critical component of our training. If the dog isn’t enjoying the training we approach from a new angle.
“What kind of trust do they have in their owner?”
Enormous amounts. That is the benefit of a stabilized approach. Dogs really learn to trust and enjoy the approval of their owners.
“Did you know that the dog that was part of the Bin Laden raid was trained by all positively?”
Horse ankles! There has never been a dog in upper levels of military training that was trained all positively. If that was said somewhere it was simple propaganda so that the feel-gooders could feel-gooder. I’m actually laughing as I write this. There is no military program in dog training that doesn’t use compulsion as an integral part of training. Go take that line to someone in the military dog business and see if they don’t spit their milk that they’re drinking all over you. You may have read somewhere that detection dogs are trained with all positive. That CAN be mostly true, but not the case with dogs with bite training. (Wear a milk shield or something when you bring it up, so you don’t get messy)
“Yes a hit on the head with a frying pan will stop the behavior but that dog will probably be afraid to come into the kitchen or be afraid of you when you have a frying pan… and that could be the least of it’s issues. Get with the scientific proof out there.”
Ummmm….Not sure if you read it. I am pretty open about the negative side effects of hitting your dog on the head with a frying pan. And I was able to come to that conclusion without a scientific study.
“Are you going to work/train dogs for a “thank you”? I think not. You need that paycheck every once in awhile.”
Difference # 476 between myself and a dog.
I highly recommend that everyone stop commenting on this article. It is quite evident that a person who writes such an article as this is only doing so in order to provoke controversy and we all know that controversy attracts attention, i.e. publicity. If a person is so passionate about how effective their training methods are then they would write an article promoting the effectiveness of their training methods without having to “put down” other methods. Before you begin to argue about how other trainers, such as force free trainers, “put down” on using aversive techniques, I would suggest that you research which force free trainers are most effective in getting their message across regarding the effectiveness of using force free and positive reinforcement methods. The most effective ways of communicating the use of force free methods are not done by judging those who use aversive techniques, they are done by warning the owner against the use of using aversive techniques and how such methods can impair the bond between owner and dog. A force free trainer should not judge others, as well as trainer who uses aversive methods should not judge others. Once again, stop commenting on this article please.
But why stop commenting when it’s so fun? (By the way, the humor is not lost on me that you encourage all to stop commenting….while you’re commenting)
“f a person is so passionate about how effective their training methods are then they would write an article promoting the effectiveness of their training methods without having to “put down” other methods.”
I literally have hundreds of pages on this website, hundreds of pages of ebooks written, hundreds of hours of video produced promoting the effectiveness of my training method. My putting down of other methods is perhaps a tiny fraction of 1% of my body of work. It’s written as a caution for those who are prone to fads and propagandas.
Also, the humor is not lost on me that you encourage people not to judge other trainers….while you judge me.
Cheers.
“without having to “put down” other methods” Please people…ALL of you positive reinforcement only trainers have been literately bashing Cesar Millan for years!!! You have a whole web-site (also on Facebook) dedicated strictly to label him as inhuman and a abuser. One person comes along to challenge your methods and you get all pissy…a perfect example of a hypocrite!
anyone who advocates for the use of corrections, +P or -R doesn’t know a thing about dogs or how dogs learn. Advocating for the use of methods where you are telling a dog he is wrong is just pathetic.
Gen. Your comments are so full of passion yet so devoid of rational thought. Understanding and using all quadrants is a great way to learn (even YOU are capable of learning that way).
Ty, good read and luv the comments
Life is all about discipline, this word is NEVER used in any “positive only” trainers repertoire whatsoever. Any self-help book, DVD, seminar and or course always focuses to build assertiveness, self-confidence, self-esteem, awareness and overall happiness…this is built through one way…SELF-DISCIPLINE, period! Words like, LEADERSHIP, DISCIPLINE, ASSERTIVENESS have been “red flagged” in the clicker community, giving these very powerful words a bad name. Have no illusions…that certain TV dog trainer did NOT “coin” these words, trainers like myself and I would venture to say like Mr Brown have been using for many many years, way before any popular doggy show ever existed! Oh yeah, we are suppose to discipline and correct children but not dogs…
And I quote…”Providing appropriate discipline to children is one of the most essential responsibilities of a parent”
This is straight from the American Humane Association, it does not get no clearer then this!
DISCIPLINE NOT PUNISHMENT…its that simple!
Good points. Simplicity never looks good, though, in University studies so it tends to be ignored by those who want to confuse how learning is done.
This “article” is pure garbage. Waste of time reading it.
Now that just cuts me deep.
Although…you did read it. And got to the end. And took the time to comment.
Ty Brown- 1. Hiding behind internet anonymity MM- 0.
“What does that mean for the family dog, though? If you train the dog in the living room with clickers and treats and no distractions what do you think will happen when you attempt to transition that training to the real world? There are a lot of things in the real world (bikes, cats, dogs, kids, cars, squirrels, etc.) that are far more interesting than your clicker and treats.”
you clearly do not understand clicker training. Or how to train dogs period.
I guess I’ll have to return all that money, then, to the scores of dog owners who have told me their dogs and their lives are improved from what I taught them. Those foolish people have no clue that their lives and dogs weren’t actually improved like they believed.
Life is going to be tough being that poor.
Maybe the circus is hiring the World’s Dumbest Man and I can submit an application….
I think that’s it’s very unfortunate that you feel the need to bash clicker training.
If you feel your own methods are the best, I understand, as every trainer of every school of thought thinks this way.
I think the difference though, is that you don’t need to attack another person’s way of training to prove your own way of training. If you do so, usually there are very emotional reasons behind your decision to attack.
Some positive trainers attack e collars trainers because of a concern over animal welfare. Animal welfare is a pretty big priority, so I imagine that they feel justified in said attack as it offends their morals. But you aren’t attacking a set of morals. You are falsely attacking clicker training by claiming that it is ineffective, while at the same time defending yourself by saying that it works “to a .limited degree”.
I sincerely believe that you don’t understand how marker training(aka clicker training) actually works. I also believe that most people who have difficulty with a clicker simply don’t know how to use it correctly. I would like to break down some of the things that I think you aren’t understanding:
1. “Using motivators or a lack of motivators as the sole training method. ”
This is how animal learning theory operates. E collars, choke chains, pinch collars, abuse, clickers, etc. all rely on motivation to work. The animal is motivated to walk loosely on leash because of a leash correction. Clickers are excellent at motivating, granted only when they are used by a person who is educated on their PROPER USE.
2. or example, you can teach a dog to sit or lie down with a clicker super fast. As you want to take that training, though, and make it more ‘real-world’ by adding distractions, overcoming the dog’s natural drives, etc. that will take an enormous amount of time and effort. Most dog owner aren’t going to be able to develop the skills necessary for that and few dog owners will be willing to invest the time. What you end up with is very basic and rudimentary training that took a long time to achieve. At my company we regularly get clients who have been going to this type of training for months, and in some cases years, to correct issues like aggression, leash pulling, destruction, and other problems that are literally turned around in minutes, hours, or days with better methods. This leads to the by-products that I don’t like from this movement of training. So many dogs end up in shelters and euthanized because they were ‘trained’ using inferior methods that get lower end results or take too much effort to get desired results.”
Again, we are talking about proper use. E collar trainers hear a very similar statement to what you typed above all the time and the routinely defend themselves by saying “But you aren’t using it correctly!” The bottom line is that you aren’t around good clicker trainers.
Instead, your line of work attracts people who are novices at clicker training, and those people mess up and blame the tool instead of blaming themselves. I mean, come on. Your argument is word for word what I hear from e collar trainers when I talk about the negative side effects that I have seen. This is all very one sided.
3. “I, very often, see proponents of this method talk about their ‘successes’ in ‘training’ an aggressive dog, or a destructive dog, or a hyper dog. Frequently those successes were built on management with drugs, management with avoiding scenarios (we’ve had many clients been told by their ‘positive’ trainers that in order to fix their dog’s aggression they just had to avoid dogs…not so much of a fix), or simply excuses like ‘well, this breed is just that way’ or ‘there is a ceiling with every dog so this is as far as we’re going to get’ or other such excuses. The successes that these trainers enjoy are far inferior to the successes enjoyed by a more stabilized approach. So, again, I don’t doubt certain successes in this style. I just happen to know that there are far greater successes within reach.”
There are several types of services offered by trainers. One of those services is management. I too, prefer treatment. I too, work with aggressive dogs. he difference is that I opt for treatment using protocols like BAT(behavioral adjustment training) rather than an e collar.
4. “Using what I call a ‘stabilized approach’ or what other trainers refer to as a ‘balanced approach’. When this approach is done wrong it can absolutely have bad by-products. I’m not ignorant of the damage that unskilled, cruel, or idiotic trainers have done with pinch collars and electric collars. But with even a little bit of skill someone who is using a stabilized approach will be able to achieve high end results, in a quicker time, with no negative by-products. That just isn’t a claim that can be made by any other style of training.”
But it is a claim that is made by almost everyone in training. And, again, you point out that people who get bad results are doing it wrong! YES! there’s an answer for your clicker training issues!
I get the feeling that you feel attacked by the positive training community. Attacking them back won’t help. AND:
Most positive trainers aren’t arguing that your methods don’t achieve results. They are typically put off by the use of anything that they deem inhumane, which is a separate argument.
If you want to see successful clicker trainers, you should check out Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson, and Sophia Yin. They all achieve spectacular results.
I disagree that I’m attacking clicker training. I think that the word ‘attack’ carries with it a vindictive or overly aggressive connotation. I feel like my arguments are rational and calm. You may disagree but I don’t feel like I’ve attacked clicker training any more than you’ve attacked me with your calm and rational argument.
You are right. Clickers are excellent at motivating. I have no problem agreeing with that. The problem is when they aren’t countered with correction.
If I’m not around good clicker trainers then I’m not around good clicker trainers, perhaps you’re right. When I watch Youtube videos, Victoria Stilwell on television, and see other demonstrations by clicker trainers all I see is an incredibly slow drag towards an end that could be accomplished so much more humanely, quicker, and easier on the dog and human. So, no, I’m not hanging around lots of clicker trainers and perhaps I need to broaden my base but when I’m exposed to those who are touted as the experts in the field their results are highly underwhelming.
The bottom line is that when I see demonstrations of clicker training being done right, according to the standards the industry is setting, it’s upsetting because the results of expert use of this style of training are awful, management-related, slow, more stressful for the dog, more difficult for the owner, and have a lower ceiling of expectations.
“You are right. Clickers are excellent at motivating. I have no problem agreeing with that. The problem is when they aren’t countered with correction.”
You are referring to the no reward marker. Corrections don’t need to be psychical. They can be verbal.
“If I’m not around good clicker trainers then I’m not around good clicker trainers, perhaps you’re right. When I watch Youtube videos, Victoria Stilwell on television, and see other demonstrations by clicker trainers all I see is an incredibly slow drag towards an end that could be accomplished so much more humanely, quicker, and easier on the dog and human.”
Victoria Stillwell has used an e collar on a few occassions and talks about it in her books. That doesn’t make her an e collar trainer. She’s also not a clicker trainer, but a trainer who sometimes uses a clicker.
Like I said: Look up Dr. Sophia Yin. The woman is one of the most highly regarded animal behavior experts in the entire world. She’s a veterinary behaviorist, which is that highest form of training an education you can get in animal behavior. I trust her opinion more than yours or any other trainer because training is an unregulated industry with zero rules. You can say or sell virtually anything. Yin is an actual expert with decades of experience.
If you are looking for trainers who are just trainers, YouTube Channel Kikopup is a good source. I’d like to clear up the “purely positive” myth. The VAST majority of positive based trainers and clicker trainers are not “purely positive”.
We use all kinds of corrections. The difference is that the corrections we use don’t cause pain. My primary correction when working with aggressive dogs is a time out. It works within three time outs because the dog quickly learns “If I want to a part of this environment, I can’t act aggressively.”
Right now I’m working with several very aggressive dogs who stop being aggressive very quickly when presented with the time out. They all want to be in the environment. I achieved tremendous success with corrections that don’t use force, and I’ve done so on dogs who were going to be put down because other trainers had stopped trying. One such dog is a police academy flunkie-a Belgian Malinois with no off switch. Two time outs. He was like, “Wow, if I bite those people, they take me away from my owner!”
Look, you may not like my style of corrections, but they still are corrections! You have your own preferences.
Now, because I brought up Kikopup, i kind of got off topic. Like I said, MOST positive trainers aren’t “purely positive”. Kikopup is as close to this mythical “purely positive” as I have seen. She’s a great trainer who uses a drastically different style than myself or most other trainers. She has a different set of proprieties when training than myself as well. But she gets what she wants. I don’t really agree with all of her methods, but it works very well for her.
“The bottom line is that when I see demonstrations of clicker training being done right, according to the standards the industry is setting, it’s upsetting because the results of expert use of this style of training are awful, management-related, slow, more stressful for the dog, more difficult for the owner, and have a lower ceiling of expectations.”
Clicker training is supposed to be about turning training into a mind game for the dog. I like it because dogs are scavengers who spend a great deal of time in the wild searching for food, and we lazy humans just plop a food bowl in front of them. On top of that, most dogs are bred to have a job, and the canine unemployment epidemic can be very effectively addressed through clicker training.
Clickers make my dogs crazy excited because it’s all about working the mind. If you really know how to use a clicker, then you know that it’s all about getting a dog to think for himself and solve problems. Also, clickers are supposed to phased out after a behavior has been learned. After the behavior is learned, you proof the behavior in different environments with different levels of distractions with or without the clicker. Then, the behavior is clicker free and reward free.
I don’t dislike your method of correction, I just believe it to be ineffective.
I’m open to seeing new ideas, however. Can you show some video where one time out, or three for that matter, stops a dog from being aggressive? That I would be interested to see.
I can’t find the link, now, but there was a video that a lot of the motivator crowd was touting a couple months ago showing some sort of ‘time out’ or redirection for when the dog wanted to aggressively chase bikes. Two weeks in and they had accomplished what we’d normally accomplish in 3-5 minutes, yet the group was jumping up and down at the success they saw. That’s where I have a problem…the lowered expectations of what I perceive to be your camp. Perhaps I’m wrong about you, I’m speaking in generalizations here. That’s why I’m open to seeing some video on how a time out can solve some heavy aggression cases.
On that note, I’m so grateful this is an unregulated industry. Regulations tend to destroy the industries they touch. In this case, regulations would definitely come down hard on my style of training as all of the current ‘studies’ and grant money are following your style of training. If this country turned towards what many tout as the ‘scientific’ approach (I can go on and on about that, as if one side actually has science on their side) we would see the shelters fill up faster and dogs being euthanized at alarming rates.
And to clarify, it’s not the clickers that I dislike. Clickers are fine. Clickers can help a dog learn. Clickers can get a dog excited as you mention. It’s not the tool I’m upset with.
It’s the tendency that a large portion of clicker trainers have to believe that you can’t use physical corrections. If someone is using clickers and a meaningful correction, have at it. If someone is using clickers and time outs, that is where I’ve got a problem.
But again, I’m open to seeing new things. I’ve learned from clicker trainers over the years and have incorporated things that I like. So if you can show me (don’t point me towards a study) how time outs work then I’m not too prideful that I can’t see that and learn from it.
Oh, dear, so much ignorance displayed publicly.
I know, I can’t believe these pro-clicker people either.
Lol - great comments Ty!
What I think about your methods. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
Ah, Steve Carell. Good one. I love that guy.
Thankfully, though, your disapproval means nothing to the thousands who have benefitted from my methods.
All the best.
“The fact is that clicker training is not effective”
Um, is this supposed to be a joke?? That “fact” of yours could not be further from the truth. I REALLY wish someone would make it illegal to post misinformation on the Internet.
Ahhh, censorship. You know your ideas must be good when you attempt to get the government to shut down those who you don’t agree with.
Ty, Thanks for the training help. I have researched in great depth all training methods and thought clicker training was the way to go. But you have taught me that the e-collar when used correctly is most effective. It has made my dog and my family very happy. Keep up the great work and keep up that sense of humor.
Horse ankles? That cracked me up.
Vince
Thanks Vince. Teaching true principles doesn’t always get you pats on the back but it’s nice when they come.
I’ve not read all the comments but I used to use methods like Barbara Woodhouse recommended. As soon as I realised there was another way to train animals, I moved on to learning about how to use rewards and consequences effectively, (and kindly) and then moved on to clicker training.
It didn’t excite me too much at first. I expected miracles. But that was because I was using it to teach Sit etc (and it was more than adequate for that, let me say. In fact it really made things easy). But I was gobsmacked and excited when I started to use the clicker to really communicate with my dog - I was training for working trials and a great example was use of the clicker to train a retrieve to hand. And for shaping - oh, my!!! Yayayayaaaay!! A lightbulb went on and I’ve loved using the clicker ever since.
You have to give things a chance. Clicker training enhances the learning, it creates a good learning environment, it is precise, it is clean, quick and clear and effective and many other things beside.
In dog training, as in everything, it is important to have humility enough to learn. To be open minded. The clicker is used by many top competitors as well as ordinary dog owners to get really good long term results. If you deny it can get good results, then you are not clear on the use of clicker training.
Clicker training is fast, effective and precise. It’s also a great deal of fun. I love it. It’s an exceptional way to train!
If it’s clicker trainers who are against what you do, maybe ask yourself why and don’t simply attack clicker training, eh?
I actually don’t have problems with clickers, per se.
What I have a problem with are clicker trainers that don’t balance their clicker training with any sort of correction. That leads to poorly trained dogs, dogs on death row, etc.
So use a clicker, not a problem. BUt the best way to use it is to provide some balance with it.
I’m actually fine that clicker trainers attack me. They say that you can judge a man by the enemies he has. In this case, my ‘enemies’ (don’t mean that in a literal sense) are a group of trainers who produce poor results in dog training. I, on the other hand, produce an entirely different level of results so I’m fine that the clicker training group is against me.
It’s unfortunate that both sides in discussions like these try to paint this as black and white-”clicker trainers” who only use rewards and are ineffective vs. “balanced trainers” who abuse their dogs and create robots. Anyone with a little time and a little discernment can see that is not the case.
1. Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson and Sophia Yin are always mentioned as clicker trainers or pure positive trainers. This is not true.
A. Jean Donaldson was in a video for Gentle Leader using R- (removing an aversive to reinforce) with a leash reactive dog.
B. Sophia Yin was in an almost identical video on her blog using the same technique (R-) for the same issue. Dr. Yin was also in a video on her blog using P+ (applying an aversive to punish a behavior). In this case it was a dog who was jumping up on counters and she used an electric stimulation mat which shocked the dog when he jumped on the counter. She explained that they had spent about 3 months trying other ways of stopping the behavior but were unsuccessful.
C. Karen Pryor in her famous book “Don’t Shoot The Dog” 1999 edition states that “a punisher (P+ and P-) will not result in predictable changes.” Keep in mind that P- is usually the other quadrant stated as being available to “Pure Positive Trainers”. She then continues with, “Negative reinforcers (R-) can be used effectively to train behavior, and even though aversive stimuli are involved, the process can be relatively benign.” She then goes on to give an example which she says is “a nice use of the negative reinforcer.”
Also from the same book on page 100, she says she gave reluctant approval when her Uncle surgically removed the vocal cords of his sea lions because of neighbors’ complaints. She then wrote, “Maybe it’s the method of choice in that case.”
On page 100-101 she tells of a cat she owned which urinated on her stove. She says she never caught the cat doing the behavior, which implies she never tried (P+) but instead says, “I could not decipher her motivation, and I finally took the cat to the pound to be put to sleep.” Interestingly, she lists “capital punishment” as the most extreme “bad fairy” above P+ in her list of 8 methods of getting rid of a behavior.
Karen Pryor also states, “…each instance of negative reinforcement also contains a punisher.” Based on that and the example she gives it seems that Karen Pryor feels R- always includes P+.
Sophia Yin, in a response to her R- video, says that it’s the intention of the trainer that decides which quadrant. For example if you are trying to get your dog to sit calmly instead of lunging at another dog, then your intention is reinforcement and since you are removing an aversive to attain that, it is R-, whereas if you are trying to get your dog to stop lunging at the other dog, then your intention is punishment and since you are adding an aversive it would be P+.
I am not writing this to put down any of these wonderful trainers from whom I have learned a great deal, but having this polarity in these discussions is no benefit to anyone.
I think all these trainers, intentionally or not, are using Susan Friedman’s Humane Hierarchy. They are not “Pure Positive” and they are not “clicker trainers” unless you mean they sometimes use a clicker.
And Ty, not to let you off easily either, you say, just on this page, “I have never asserted that clickers and treats don’t work. I KNOW they work.” “The fact is that clicker training is not effective” Clicker Training “is deeply flawed and based on incorrect understanding of dog behavior and learning.” “I know that clickers work.” Also one of your featured interviews is with a clicker trainer who does truffle hunts.
Your arguments swim around depending on the situation. Clicker training works and is based on science. From what I’ve read on your site you use a lot of R- which also works and is based on science. From your interview with Robin McFarlane, her description of training a recall sounds like R-. And as you see above Karen Pryor agrees is one of the two quadrants to use and she’s a “clicker trainer” according to most. It would probably help if you started stating that you are using R- when talking about science and training and stop saying R+ doesn’t work. If your problem is with people who *only* use R+ then state that clearly and stick to it. In my experience, as I’ve shown above, there are very few people who only use R+.
You also completely ignore that fact that trainers that only use R+/P-, as well as trainers who work from the Humane Hierarchy, believe in working with increasingly higher levels of distractions for real world applications. From what I’ve read on your site you do the same. Your site also shows that you believe in keeping the dog below threshold while working which is also what all those nasty P+ trainers say.
Can’t we all just get along;-)
Well thought out response. Thanks for the reply.
I don’t see any discord in my comments. Yes, clicker training works and yet I don’t find it effective. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, in my opinion.
Having said that, I don’t have any problem with people who use them as evidenced by the people I invite on my podcast. If that’s how they want to train, that’s fine.
Our great truffle podcast was about that, truffles. We weren’t talking obedience. I would probably differ with her quite a bit on how we train obedience but she struck me as an open minded good trainer so I invited her on.
So I’m all about getting along.
My comments to the detractors, yes, are incredibly snarky. It seems that every few months this article gets posted on some board and they come en masse to attack. I get a kick out of messing with them. Mature? Not at all. But if they’re going to come and mess with my page then I’ll have a little fun.
In summary, I appreciate that you’ve got an open mind. I like to think I do, too. I’m fine however people want to train. I’m just mostly concerned with getting them the best results.
(For some reason my post was auto edited when I hit the POST COMMENT button. I’ll try again:
Please delete the earlier post, if possible to avoid duplication.)
Sorry Ty, You don’t get off that easily.
Ty wrote:
“Yes, clicker training works and yet I don’t find it effective. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, in my opinion.”
Definition of “Works”: Verb; 2(of a machine or system) operate or function, especially properly or effectively.
Synonyms of “Work”: get results, be effective.
Ty wrote:
“Our great truffle podcast was about that, truffles. We weren’t talking obedience. I would probably differ with her quite a bit on how we train obedience but she struck me as an open minded good trainer so I invited her on.”
So you say she is a “good trainer” but yet you say the technique she uses is “not effective”. So she’s a good trainer but not effective?
I would imagine she trains obedience the same way she trains truffle hunting and that for a dog to be able to hunt for truffles in the forest it would need to have pretty good obedience. If you believe the technique is not effective why would you discuss how the trainer trains the dogs.
Can you imagine a medical website interviewing a surgeon who removes tumors even though the technique the surgeon uses is not effective.
Ty wrote:
“I’m fine however people want to train.”
This is obviously not true or you would not have written this article.
Ty wrote:
“My comments to the detractors, yes, are incredibly snarky…..… I get a kick out of messing with them. Mature? Not at all.”
To advance the discussion one needs to define terms and be consistent. Also refraining from being “snarky” and “immature” would aid the endeavor.
Define your terms: As I tried to show above, “Clicker Training” is not a very precise term and I don’t think your issue is with “Clickers”, Marker Training, treats or R+. I think your issue is more with the idea that all one should use is R+. Your “Update” in red is much closer to the kind of writing that would benefit this discussion, especially when talking about the amount of time and complexity of adding distractions and overcoming the dog’s natural drives. Unfortunately the main article and especially your responses to comments goes in the other direction. And again responding to snark with snark does not help the discussion.
When it comes down to it there are only 4 quadrants to train an animal, R+, P-, R-, P+. (Counter conditioning is not really training in terms of the dog choosing behaviors (Operant) and extinction is basically the same as P-)
As I showed above:
Sophia Yin uses all four quadrants.
Jean Donaldson uses at least R+,P- and R-.
Karen Pryor says in her famous book that only R+ and R- are effective (“result in predictable changes”)
What do you use and in what proportions? That’s the discussion that should be happening.
Of course this leads to the e-collar (the white elephant in this discussion) and perhaps the real reason for articles like these.
As I see it, the e-collar could be used in the following ways for training:
1. P+ (a relatively shorter and stronger stimulus given at the same time a behavior is performed to weaken the behavior)
2. R- (a relatively longer and weaker stimulus given and removed when a behavior is performed to strengthen the behavior)
3. R+ (a very low level of stimulus which has become a conditioned reinforcer. This is the same thing as a clicker and would be used to mark the behavior and then followed by a primary reinforcer (food, praise etc)
Non-training ways it could be used:
1. Punitively (as a traditional or colloquial punishment which would not aid training)
2. As an attention getting device (this would be on a low level or on vibrate and only used occasionally and when the dog was very much under threshold.)
Since we are talking about training the 2 non-training uses have no place here and the 3rd training use (R+) seems unlikely since that would be a very expensive marker.
So that leaves P+ and R-.
Defining terms and consistency are important. There was a study done which had three groups of dogs.
“Group A (Aversion) received the electric shock when the dogs touched the prey—a rabbit dummy fixed to a motion device. Group H (Here) received the electric shock when they did not obey a previously trained recall command during hunting. Animals of group R (Random) received the electric shock arbitrarily, i.e. the shock was administered unpredictably and out of context.”
The group A corresponds to P+ (#3 of training uses), the Group H corresponds to punitive (#1 of non training uses) and Group R would probably be described as abuse if intentional or very bad training if unintentional.
When the dogs were brought back to the training site 4 weeks later (but with out e-collar stimulus) and their salivary cortisol levels were tested the Group A dogs did not have a raised level (did not show stress). However the other two groups did have raised levels (showed stress).
Often in these discussions all three are often lumped together and termed “corrections”, e-collar training, or punishment based training etc.
Obviously they didn’t use or consider R- usage.
Also I am neither promoting nor dissuading the use of e-collars but simply trying to show that this discussion needs calm precise language and not inflammatory comments or hyperbole.
Of course this is your blog……you win, you get the last word. That’s the nature of these platforms. You can respond with snarky and immature (your words, not mine) comments or you can elevate the discussion for the benefit of all.
Also I misspelled Robin MacFarlane’s name in my earlier post. I apologize.
I shall rebut thy rebuttal-
You wrote- Definition of “Works”: Verb; 2(of a machine or system) operate or function, especially properly or effectively.
Synonyms of “Work”: get results, be effective.
My response- YES. It works, it gets results. Just really crappy results when compared with better methods.
You wrote- So you say she is a “good trainer” but yet you say the technique she uses is “not effective”. So she’s a good trainer but not effective?
I would imagine she trains obedience the same way she trains truffle hunting and that for a dog to be able to hunt for truffles in the forest it would need to have pretty good obedience. If you believe the technique is not effective why would you discuss how the trainer trains the dogs.
Can you imagine a medical website interviewing a surgeon who removes tumors even though the technique the surgeon uses is not effective.
My response- She strikes me as a great truffle trainer. I have no idea how good she is at obedience. Nor do I care. I wanted people to learn about truffles in that interview and not obedience training. I’ve never seen truffle dogs work so I have no clue to their level of obedience. I do know, however, that there are a great many scent work dogs (narcotics, explosives) that have awful obedience. They aren’t trained for obedience, their job is scent work. Is this the case with her dogs? I have no idea. Again, I don’t care. I was interested in learning how the scent training happens.
You wrote- This is obviously not true or you would not have written this article.
My response- I wrote this article for SEO purposes, actually. The web designer I had working on the site said, “You really need to write an article on clicker training because there is a lot of traffic to get.” So I did.
If someone opts to not train the way I recommend, I don’t care. I’m a big freedom lover and love that people can make their own choices. I write articles to educate people so they’ve got various viewpoints. And if they like mine, GREAT! If they don’t, I DON’T CARE.
As the saying goes for those willing to be educated “Some will, some won’t, so what, someone’s waiting”. If you or others don’t agree with my style, so what? Others are waiting to learn.
You wrote- To advance the discussion one needs to define terms and be consistent. Also refraining from being “snarky” and “immature” would aid the endeavor.
My response- You’re darn right it would aid my endeavor! But being an immature person (and being fine with that) I often sacrifice aiding my endeavors for the sake of making a joke.
You wrote- ….a bunch of sciency stuff that sounds nice.
My response- I don’t care what ‘studies’ show. No, I’m not a head in the sand flat-earther. I’m just tired of people telling me my way doesn’t work when I consistently outperform, out-train, and out-help anti-aversive trainers all day long.
These folks like to quote me studies on why my way doesn’t work. I’m not a ‘convert the masses’ type. I’m a ‘preach to the choir type’. My experience is that the anti-aversive crowd is so entrenched in their dogma (pun intended) that they completely discount the fact that people hire us for results. I’m not looking to convert that type of person to my way. Takes WAY too much emotional capital. And as the saying goes, ‘You can’t reason someone out of a corner they didn’t use reason to get in.’ I’m not interested in converting you or anyone else. All I care about is finding people with open minds who can see common sense and results when those things are presented.
You’ve got your studies, fine. I’ve got thousands of people who have successfully used my methods, helped their dogs, and improved their lives and their dog’s lives.
When someone tells me that they’ve got a study that proves that I’m not able to do that I recognize that we are far too far apart to make any headway. At that point my snarkiness comes out because that is far more fun.
I tried correction based training with my dog who had come from a bad background. I never smacked him or screamed at him. Just used a firm voice and corrections on the collar. He became more and more fearful of people.
Within a couple of weeks of changing to positive training with the clicker he was a different dog. Much more willing and happy to work. Being harsh with a dog might work with some. They might even maintain their happy outlook on life but it doesn’t work with dogs that are already very fearful and/or timid.
Also, I don’t even use food with the clicker. All the clicker does is mark the behavior. You can then use food or pats or praise or balls or whatever else motivates your dog. You do not need to use food.
Your article clearly shows that you don’t understand what clicker training is about. I’m not sure if perhaps you saw a few people try it and do it badly and then decided it didn’t work or perhaps tried it yourself and because of your poor timing and obvious blinkers decided that it didn’t work. Or you simply never tried it and just decided to be a hater about something you don’t have a clue about.
Yes your form of training probably works for most dogs. But I would rather not have to scold and correct my dog if I don’t have to.
You also asked for the science that disproved you and then when furnished with it decided not to read it, or just skim it. Not sure but you clearly didn’t read it.
Ruth, I’m pleased you found something that works for you and your dog. Above all, I’m an advocate for dogs so if something works for you then I’m thrilled for both of you.
I would like to point out the irony, though, in your statement. You state that I must have seen clicker training done wrong and that’s why I must not be a fan. I would posit that you were doing balanced training wrong and that’s why you’re not a fan. If you’re using a healthy balance of correction and motivation then the side effects you mentioned wouldn’t be present. No one has ever advocated for being harsh with a dog.
And if you’ll read the numerous times I wrote this, I never claimed clicker training doesn’t work. I know it works. Just not at a level that is professional and worth paying for.
And I’m still waiting for the science. I went through each one of the articles furnished and most of them were laughable as they didn’t related to any science at all. Those that did have actual scientific studies attached did nothing to prove or disprove my position.
I’ll make you the same challenge, where is this science that proves me wrong or you right?